Posted on 07/20/2007 12:19:50 AM PDT by John Farson
It comes right down to freedom. They want to go back to small government. Not smaller government. Small government as it was originally intended. And that is what really unites most of our support.
The word ‘freedom’ is a short-hand way of explaining Paul’s platform.
Paul supports a drastically reduced federal government- the elimination of the IRS, he believes state’s should be left to regulate abortion and marriage policies.
He questions many international organizations and agreements, such as the World Trade Organization, NAFTA and the country’s membership to the United Nations.
(Excerpt) Read more at nhpr.org ...
William F. Buckley, Jr. -- that hardcore communist founder of National Review -- came to the same conclusion after the fact.
Secondly, all the wimp does is yak. He NEVER accomplishes anything. And puhleeeze spare us the mantra that he voted this way or that, sponsored this nutcase bill or that, appeared at this social event or that, etc. In his all too many years on the public payroll as an opinionizing Congresscritter, JUST WHAT HAS HE ACCOMPLISHED by way of laws or repeal oflaws?????? Also spare us any delusion that even Congress is just not up to the paleopantywaist's stratospheric standard as an excuse.
I have been trying to figure something positive to be said about paleoPaulie. I have it. He hasn't YET sponsored a rock concert for peace or a spandex clad walk for surrender or an ice cream social fundraiser for Osama bin Laden.
Was it legitimate to go to war against Hussein given that he was routinely firing missiles at our pilots?
Thank you for proving my point correct. Legitimate arguments do not resort to ad hominem.
Should our military police the world?
At what point does soft empire become prohibitively expensive?
I gave you the answer to it. It did not require war. It required allowed pilots with nice large missiles and bombs to be allowed to shoot back without having to go through Mother May I's to do so. Hit them like that and it would stop. We needed to fish or cut bait in Iraq we did neither one. Now our military is tied up in Iraq as is a sizable portion of our resources and hey guess who decided that would be the perfect time to test us again? Two nations thousands of miles apart only now we have limited capabilities thanks to poor planning. Our best hope to take care of Iraq and Iran would have been to let them continue to beat the snot out of each other. Now they are united against us.
Someone failed to study M.E. culture both in the White House and state department which is actually running the war anyway. They will fight each other till an outsider fights one of them then they become quick friends till that war is over. Iraq and Iran hate each other but now hate us more.
I have a question. A United States Navy ship was fired upon and sailors died within months of the end of the Clinton term and beginning of the Bush term. Why did both Clinton and Bush let that slide? Is Yemen our friend? In 1981 they threatened an attack on the U.S. Navy. No they were not friends to our Navy but trade friends. Which is why using a U.S. Navy ship for a stupid diplomatic reason got sailors killed. They didn't even need the fuel.
So your answer is that Hussein was justified in our attacking our pilots, but we weren’t justified in declaring war in response?
The mid-term Republican losses were interpreted as referendum on the war. If this is true -- voters may spite Republicans once again. :/
If you must argue with a straw-man, knock yourself out... but don’t expect a response.
We could have bombed Iraq till kingdom come and it wouldn't have put Hussein out of power. We had to send ground troops into to do that.
The war is unpopular because you’ve been told we’ve been losing for the last four years. If you want to talk about unpopular, then just let Ron Paul talk to the public. Libertarianism is just unpopular, its anti-popular.
Lets not confuse popularism with doing what is right. We win in Iraq and we just stop bothering to have a defense. It doesn’t matter the reason for retreat because our enemies will all agree that it was because they defeated us.
You got to get past this conspiracy theory stuff. Somehow we tricked the entire world into thinking that Iraq had WMD and that Saddam was an evil dictator? And we probably blew up the Twin Towers ourselves too? Even if either were possible, wouldn’t it be a lie just too good to keep to yourself and one of these socialist buttplugs in the State department would have leaked it to the NYT by now.
I was expecting to get a yes or no response to the question of whether we were entitled to declare war against Hussein, but I am guessing that is not going to happen. Hopefully someone will ask the same question of Ron Paul and maybe he will be more forthcoming in his response than his supporters have been.
Specific areas of agreement (parenthetical questions are my suggested policies with which you may not agree):
1. Our troops are being worn down by overdeployment and over [any???] reliance on reserves (and by imbecilic criminal prosecutions for anything the antiwar antiAmerican crowd does not like?);
2. We don't need social engineering (we need mass killing of our nation's enemies funded by confiscating their oil??? We also need to preserve the sovereignty of our Kurdish allies???);
3. Bush absolutely should have given the troops free reign to utterly destroy the Iraqi enemies and flatten their areas.
4. We need drastically increased numbers of soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, etc., generally and in the Middle East.
5. We don't need or want nation building in Iraq or anywhere else, now or ever. (not even in New Orleans)
6. Your last two paragraphs generally.
The answer STILL is not and never will be anything vaguely resembling paleoPaulie or his ilk.
Whether the Bush administration knew the Iraq intelligence was faulty does not concern me. Incompetence is just a troubling.
The world is full of evil dictators. We give money and friendship to some and wage expensive wars on others.
100% agreement.
He was caught and what happened. George wanted to give a civics lesson next. The man should have faced a U.S. Military Tribunal. Our troops were owed that much but George had to grand stand on that as well. Look here world George is teaching Iraq civics. Isn't he wonderful. What's that more shooting and bombing to try and free him in the mean time? Saddam's still dead and we're still there. But that could have been done as well covertly. It was a stupid Bush mentor Gerald R Ford who stopped covert ops against such thugs to start with and thus began the rise in state sponsored terrorism.
I'll do you one better. Remember the USSR going after bin Laden. How many years did they chase him in those mountains? What happened? Between it and the arms race they went broke and bin Laden lives. You want bin Laden? Stop chasing and let him show his face in public then BANG!!! Likely much sooner than our current operations. In the mean time keep drones up 24/7/365 and secure our borders and return to a Cold War defense posture at home.
Yes, but what some Libertarians don't seem to grasp is that we are a nation, also, and we don't have a changing definition of human life from state to state--or we shouldn't. It's not a matter of prosecution of a murder; it's a matter of definition of what is human.
This is becoming an epiphany, post afterpost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.